Foreign Relations of the United States, 1981–1988, Volume XLI, Global Issues II

52. Memorandum of Conversation¹

Washington, September 24, 1981, 11:30 a.m.

SUBJECT

• Appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Human Rights, Consultation with Congress on IFI Votes, Asylum for Iranian Jews

PARTICIPANTS

• David Carliner, Chairman, International Human Rights Law Group
• Leonard Sussman, Executive Director of Freedom House
• John Carey, alternate U.S. representative to the UN subcommission on Human Rights in Geneva
• P. Peter Sarros, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs
• Hugh Simon, Jr., HA, Notetaker
• Richard Morris, Assistant to Judge Clark

Judge Clark welcomed the group, saying that he is familiar with their interest and shares their concern.

Mr. Carliner said their primary reason for coming to see the Deputy Secretary is to discuss the vacancy in the position of the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights. Judge Clark responded that this issue has not been forgotten. Under Secretary for Management Richard Kennedy has been studying the reorganization of several State Department positions. An announcement will be made in about two weeks, but it would be an unfair tipping of the hand to go into detail now. If the reorganization requires Congressional approval, which it may not, the approval will be sought. The prior administration’s human rights policy, said Judge Clark, was not a resounding success—“I prefer to speak of personal or individual rights”. We recognize our national responsibilities in that area, and there has been no slippage on that account in this administration. Amnesty International has reported a worldwide reduction in political prisoners. The defeat of Dr. Lefever has nothing to do with our current plans for restructuring of the human rights bureau, although the defeat was, naturally, a great disappointment to the White House.²

Mr. Carliner expressed his view that, if the Human Rights Bureau is subsumed into another bureau, it would be considered by observers to be a diminution of concern for human rights. Similarly, a change of the name “human rights” to individual or personal rights would also be given a more symbolic importance than it would deserve. Human rights has an international significance. Dealing exclusively with the concept of individuality and personality, while extremely important, would fail to address group problems, such as those of Jews in the Soviet Union and, historically, Armenians in Turkey.

Mr. Sussman observed that Freedom House has always used the term “individual political and civil liberties”. Social and economic concerns are important, but only as desirable categories. If individual rights are protected, then social and economic needs will be satisfied more easily. Ambassador Kampelman at the CSCE meeting in Madrid has operated splendidly in a situation in which our geo-political interests coincide with outspoken human rights concerns. Radio Liberty and Radio Free Europe would be able to deliver a strong message by reporting U.S. human rights concerns. He urged the Administration to marshall all its available tools, including human rights.

Mr. Carey said that there is no magic in the use of the formulation “human rights”, because he has seen personally how civil liberties evolved into civil rights and human rights. The important thing is to be out there pushing for individual rights. It is an effective way to fight communism. Emphasis on the individual is the best way to be forceful.

Judge Clark responded that “this is certainly the thinking of the Secretary. We have not lost sight of the concern you have brought here today, and as the policy unfolds, I would like to receive your further comments”. Mr. Carey asked if the statutory functions of the human rights bureau are to continue. Judge Clark said that they would “continue until Congress says otherwise”.

Mr. Carliner summed up by saying he understood that no decision would be made on filling the human rights job before a decision is made on the position itself. Judge Clark expressed agreement.

[Omitted here are discussions not related to human rights.]

1. Source: Department of State, Central Foreign Policy File, P810146–0873. Confidential. Drafted by Simon on September 25; cleared in HA, D, and S/S. Sent to Clark, Perito, Fairbanks, Surena, Kennedy, Palmer, and Williams. The meeting took place in Clark’s office.
2. Details of the Senate vote are available in Judith Miller, “Rebuffed in Senate, Lefever Pulls Out as Rights Nominee,” New York Times, June 5, 1981, p. 1.